The importance of voice analysis in evaluating the effectiveness of reflux treatment

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to investigate the effects of reflux treatment in voice disorders in laryngopharyngeal reflux LPR patients using acoustic analyses and the relationship between scoring systems. Patients and Methods: A total of 84 LPR patients 18 males, 66 females; mean age 43.1±11.3 years; range 18 to 73 years were evaluated using reflux symptom index RSI , reflux findings score RFS , videolaryngostroboscopic examination, and acoustic analysis with Dr. Speech 4 before LPR treatment and at the first and third months after treatment. Results: Maximum phonation time, fundamental frequency F0 , jitter, and shimmer scores did not show any statistically significant alteration at the posttreatment period according to pretreatment scores p>0.05 . However, the alteration in Harmonics-to-Noise ratio and Signals-to-Noise ratio scores were statistically significant p=0.017 and p=0.003, respectively . Reflux symptom index results showed significant positive correlation with F0 at the pretreatment, and at posttreatment first and third month evaluations Spearman's rank correlation coefficient [rho]=0.246, p=0.024; rho=0.300, p=0.006; rho=0.305, p=0.005, respectively . Conclusion: The relationship between the parameters of acoustic analysis and RSI and RFS values seems to be controversial for diagnosis and follow-up of LPR patients, requiring further investigations.

Keywords

• Laryngopharyngeal reflux, reflux scoring system, voice analysis

Reflü tedavisinin etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesinde ses analizinin önemi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada akustik analizler kullanılarak larengofarengeal reflü LPR hastalarındaki ses bozukluklarında reflü tedavisinin etkileri ve skorlama sistemleri arasındaki ilişki araştırıldı.Hastalar ve Yöntemler: Toplam 84 LPR hastası 18 erkek, 66 kadın; ort. yaş 43.1±11.3 yıl; dağılım 18-73 yıl reflü semptom indeksi RSİ , reflü bulgu skoru RBS , videolaringostroboskopik inceleme ve Dr. Speech 4 ile akustik analiz kullanılarak LPR tedavisi öncesinde ve tedavi sonrası birinci ve üçüncü ayda değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Maksimum fonasyon zamanı, temel frekans F0 , jitter ve shimmer skorları tedavi öncesi skorlara göre tedavi sonrası dönemde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değişiklik göstermedi p>0.05 . Fakat harmonik gürültü oranı ve sinyal gürültü oranı skorlarındaki değişiklik istatistiksel olarak anlamlı idi sırasıyla p=0.017 ve p=0.003 . Reflü semptom indeksi bulguları tedavi öncesi ve tedavi sonrası birinci ve üçüncü ay değerlendirmelerinde F0 ile anlamlı pozitif ilişki gösterdi sırasıyla Spearman’ın sıralama korelasyon katsayısı [rho]=0.246, p=0.024; rho=0.300, p=0.006; rho=0.305, p=0.005 .Sonuç: Akustik analiz parametreleri ve RSİ ve RBS değerleri arasındaki ilişki LPR hastalarının tanısı ve takibi için tartışmalı gözükmekte ve ileri araştırmalar gerektirmektedir

Keywords

• Larengofarengeal reflü, reflü skorlama sistemi, ses analizi

References

1. Jailwala JA, Shaker R. Supra-oesophageal complications of reflux disease. Dig Liver Dis 2000;32:267-74.
2. Koufman JA, Amin MR, Panetti M. Prevalence of reflux in 113 consecutive patients with laryngeal and voice disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:385-8.
3. Toohill RJ, Kuhn JC. Role of refluxed acid in pathogenesis of laryngeal disorders. Am J Med 1997;103:100-6.
4. Olson NR. Laryngopharyngeal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1991;24:1201-13.
5. Koufman JA. The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring and an experimental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in the development of laryngeal injury. Laryngoscope 1991;101:1-78.
6. Hill J, Stuart RC, Fung HK, Ng EK, Cheung FM, Chung CS, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux, motility disorders, and psychological profiles in the etiology of globus pharyngis. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1373-7.
7. Woo P, Noordzij P, Ross JA. Association of esophageal reflux and globus symptom: comparison of laryngoscopy and 24-hour pH manometry. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;115:502-7.
8. Bain WM, Harrington JW, Thomas LE, Schaefer SD. Head and neck manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux. Laryngoscope 1983;93:175-9.

9. Price JC, Jansen CJ, Johns ME. Esophageal reflux and secondary malignant neoplasia at laryngoesophagectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;116:163-4.
10. Ward PH, Hanson DG. Reflux as an etiological factor of carcinoma of the laryngopharynx. Laryngoscope 1988;98:1195-9.
11. Ulualp SO, Toohill RJ. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2000;33:785-802.
12. Pribuisiene R, Uloza V, Kupcinskas L, Jonaitis L. Perceptual and acoustic characteristics of voice changes in reflux laryngitis patients. J Voice 2006;20:128-36.
13. Oguz H, Tarhan E, Korkmaz M, Yilmaz U, Safak MA, Demirci M, et al. Acoustic analysis findings in objective laryngopharyngeal reflux patients. J Voice 2007;21:203-10.
14. Ali Mel-S. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: diagnosis and treatment of a controversial disease. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;8:28-33.
15. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI). J Voice 2002;16:274-7.
16. Maslan J, Leng X, Rees C, Blalock D, Butler SG. Maximum phonation time in healthy older adults. J Voice 2011;25:709-13.
17. Kılıç MA, Evaluation of the patient with voice problem by objective and subjective methods, Curr Pract ORL 2010;6:257-26.
18. Ross JA, Noordzji JP, Woo P. Voice disorders in patients with suspected laryngo-pharyngeal reflux disease. J Voice 1998;12:84-8.
19. Akyildiz S, Ogut F, Varis A, Kirazli T, Bor S. Impact of laryngeal findings on acoustic parameters of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2012;74:215-9.
20. Hamdan AL, Sharara AI, Younes A, Fuleihan N. Effect of aggressive therapy on laryngeal symptoms and voice characteristics in patients with gastroesophageal reflux. Acta Otolaryngol 2001;121:868-72.
21. Selby JC, Gilbert HR, Lerman JW. Perceptual and acoustic evaluation of individuals with laryngopharyngeal reflux pre- and post-treatment. J Voice 2003;17:557-70.
22. Hanson DG, Jiang JJ, Chen J, Pauloski BR. Acoustic measurement of change in voice quality with treatment for chronic posterior laryngitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1997;106:279-85.
23. Shaw GY, Searl JP. Laryngeal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux before and after treatment with omeprazole. South Med J 1997;90:1115-22.
24. Branski RC, Bhattacharyya N, Shapiro J. The reliability of the assessment of endoscopic laryngeal findings associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1019-24.
25. Komatsu Y, Kelly LA, Zaidi AH, Rotoloni CL, Kosovec JE, Lloyd EJ, et al. Hypopharyngeal pepsin and Sep70 as diagnostic markers of laryngopharyngeal reflux: preliminary study. Surg Endosc 2015;29:1080-7.
26. Siupsinskiene N, Adamonis K. Diagnostic test with omeprazole in patients with posterior laryngitis. Medicina (Kaunas) 2003;39:47-55.
27. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS). Laryngoscope 2001;111:1313-7.
28. Jin bJ, Lee YS, Jeong SW, Jeong JH, Lee SH, Tae K. Change of acoustic parameters before and after treatment in laryngopharyngeal reflux patients. Laryngoscope 2008;118:938-41.
29. DelGaudio JM, Waring JP. Empiric esomeprazole in the treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Laryngoscope 2003;113:598-601.
30. Hanson DG, Kamel PL, Kahrilas PJ. Outcomes of antireflux therapy for the treatment of chronic laryngitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;104:550-5.